For a small country, sovereignty is more than just a word; it is the core principle of independence.
By Sanjay Upadhya
Last month in New Delhi, China and India announced the resumption of border trade through the Lipulekh Pass. Nepal considers this far-western territory part of its Darchula district, based on historical maps. Conversely, India argues that the Kalapani area, which includes the pass, belongs to it, citing colonial-era agreements.
This much is clear. The Kali River marks the border between India and Nepal. However, there has been a long-standing debate over the river's source and the exact location of the border.
India maintains that the watershed boundary should serve as the border. In 2019, New Delhi released a new political map showing Kalapani as part of India. Nepal responded the next year by updating its official map to include Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura, and later incorporated these regions into its Constitution.
Following last week’s India-China agreement, Nepal’s government issued a statement reaffirming its claim. The statement emphasized Nepal’s consistent request for India to refrain from activities such as road construction or border trade in this area.
In response, India’s External Affairs Ministry spokesperson said, “Border trade between India and China through Lipulekh pass began in 1954 and has continued for decades... such claims are not justified and lack evidence.”
In 2015, India and China agreed to boost trade through Lipulekh. The fact that negotiations took place over Nepali territory without informing Kathmandu is a serious breach of Nepal’s sovereignty. It also shows that the country’s borders are only recognized when it suits neighboring states.
India’s role demands particular concern. Since 1954, India has maintained a military presence in Kalapani, gradually asserting control after its 1962 conflict with China. The 2019 map, which labeled Lipulekh as Indian territory, was not just an update but a strategic move to redraw boundaries at Nepal’s expense. For a country that claims to value its friendship with Nepal, this was a serious breach of trust.
China also bears responsibility. By supporting the Lipulekh trade route agreement with India, Beijing ignored Nepal’s sovereignty. How can a country claiming to uphold ‘territorial integrity’ cooperate in ways that undermine this principle? While China promotes Belt and Road projects, which India opposes, Beijing’s actions suggest Nepal is being used as a pawn in its rivalry with New Delhi.
Adding to Nepal’s worries is the silence among its political leaders. Instead of showing unity, many stay divided, opportunistic, and hesitant. They often use nationalist rhetoric but sometimes drop these positions for quick political gains. When a country faces external betrayal, internal divisions make the situation worse.
Lipulekh is more than just a mountain pass; it represents Nepal’s dignity. If the country’s sovereignty is compromised even once, it risks further loss. Nepal must respond clearly and strongly, or it may be pushed aside in key border decisions.
Nepal must remind India and China that it is not just a buffer zone or passive observer. As a proud sovereign nation with a rich history, Nepalis view territorial encroachment for strategic gain not only as a betrayal of the current generation but also of all those who fought to preserve national independence over the centuries.
The Path Forward
The Lipulekh issue requires careful diplomacy and national unity rather than emotional reactions. Nepal should strengthen its boundary commission, gather and share old maps, treaties, and documents to support its case. It should continue negotiations with India and encourage China to recognize Nepal’s rights in future talks.
Nepal needs a proactive diplomatic strategy that involves regional organizations like SAARC, BIMSTEC, and the United Nations. These actions will show Nepal’s dedication to safeguarding its territory through peaceful and lawful methods.
Most importantly, Nepal’s political leaders must unite and speak with a clear, unwavering voice. Protecting sovereignty is too important to be dependent on partisan politics or quick fixes. Calm, principled diplomacy combined with domestic stability is crucial to ensure Nepal’s meaningful participation in decisions about its land.
Lipulekh tests Nepal’s borders and its resilience as a free and independent nation. The way this challenge is handled will influence not only this dispute but also the confidence in national sovereignty going forward.
